TORONTO -- If I were a justice of the peace, he'd be in jail.
But I'm not, and he isn't.
With 62 convictions already on his rap sheet, many of them drug-related, this 32-year-old man recently appeared in bail court at Old City Hall and was released on a $1,000 surety -- no deposit, and therefore no financial pain -- and given the liberty of house arrest after being charged, yet again, for trafficking in crack cocaine.
And he was given this break by a JP despite also being on bail on other charges, as well as being on probation for one of those previous 62 convictions.
No wonder the cops get frustrated.
Tracked down through public court documents, this alleged drug dealer was found at his apartment above a strip-mall dollar store in the Dupont-Lansdowne area of the city's west end, but was unwilling to talk about how -- or why -- the JP decided he was worthy of even limited freedom.
Sixty-two convictions, yet no denial of bail?
It would take some explaining.
Some two weeks ago, the Toronto Police issued a press release on Project Sunshine, a joint effort by the drug squad and 14 Division undercover officers, which zeroed in on drug dealers working the hot-spot corners in the city's west end.
'OPPORTUNITY' BUYS
During the five-week project, undercover cops made 80 "opportunity" buys, purchasing a total of $100,000 in drugs that were being sold as openly as scalpers flogging Leaf tickets outside the ACC, and came up with 60 accused who, once their rap sheets were tallied, had already racked up 955 previous convictions.
Yet more than half are already back on the streets.
The cops had obviously done their job.
But the courts?
During the bail process, a 23-year-old man, not an "addict dealer" and with no criminal record, and who was charged with three counts of trafficking in crack cocaine, was granted bail -- on a $500 surety, but with no deposit.
This, perhaps, is understandable considering the fact he is relatively young and had no priors.
But how does one explain a JP giving an even better deal -- bail with no surety whatsoever -- to a 38-year-old woman with 13 prior criminal convictions who was charged with three counts of trafficking in crack cocaine, and three counts of being in possession of the proceeds of crime, namely her stash of drug cash?
STILL ON BAIL
Or giving bail -- on a $1,000 surety, but again with no deposit -- to a 43-year-old male with 12 previous criminal convictions, and who was still on bail on other charges when he was arrested during Project Sunshine for once again trafficking in crack cocaine ?
How does his failure to comply with one bail translate into being given bail yet again?
Insp. Joanna Beaven heads up the detective units at 14 Division, and Det. Sgt. Brian Kelly its vice squad.
"What's most frustrating is dealing with members of the community who know a drug dealer has been arrested, and then see him out on the street the next day," says Beaven.
"All we can tell them is that we are doing our jobs, and that there is nothing we can do when it comes to the court doing its job."
"Frustrating from an enforcement perspective, yes, but you cannot give up. You have to keep the pressure on," says Kelly, noting that intelligence gathered during Project Sunshine enabled the force's drug squad to take down a number of mid-level suppliers and dealers.
As reported here, some of those mid-level operatives included an 63-year-old man living and working out of a Dufferin St. retirement home, an Augusta Ave. record shop used as a front for drug dealing, and an appliance store that was selling more than dishwashers.
But most of those arrested are out on bail, too -- even those who had already given the finger to the courts.
* * *
Final Word: From former Peel Regional Police Sgt. Rod Jones on the controversy over Durham cops in Bowmanville ticketing people for public intoxication while waiting for the designated driver service.
"Just a comment from a former police sergeant with more than 22 years' experience who has also taught advanced patrol training at the Ontario Police College and has handled hundreds of intoxicated persons since 1985.
"You never, ever issue a public intox ticket to someone and then drive away. You don't even issue an intox ticket and then take them home as they could leave the residence after you drop them off. It is against most internal procedures and sets up the officer and the police service for negligence suits. That is basic training for front-line officers.
"There are a number of civil litigation suits in Ontario that are directly on point and the police have been held liable.
"You either take them to a place of safety -- home, hospital or jail depending on their level of intoxication or if they are not causing a problem and not a danger you let them be. If you're giving them a ride home you hand them over to a person to look after them or if they are not in that bad of shape you write your notes to reflect that in your opinion they were not intoxicated and were not a danger to themselves or others.
"While it may not be legally wrong to issue the offence notice and then drive off, it shows very poor judgment, lack of understanding of the act, inability to foresee potential negligence and is not professional."
With those words now on the record, I rest my case.
But will Durham Regional Police take heed?
MARK.BONOKOSKI@SUNMEDIA.CA OR 416-947-2445
